Citation: 2020 RLLR 149
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 3, 2020
Panel: M. Bourassa
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Henry Igbinoba
Country: Nigeria
RPD Number: TB8-13768
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-00210
ATIP Pages: 000053-000061
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] The claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX claims to be a citizen of Nigeria, and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to s. 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).i
[2] The panel has received and considered post-hearing evidence,ii namely updated medical reports.
DETERMINATION
[3] Having considered the totality of the evidence, the panel finds that the claimant, is a Convention refugee pursuant to s. 96 as he has established a serious possibility of persecution based on a Convention ground, namely his perceived political opinion.
ALLEGATIONS
[4] The allegations are set out in the claimant’ s Basis of Claim form.iii In short, the claimant alleges that if he were to return to Nigeria, he fears for his life at the hands of the state security apparatus, especially the military, due to his perceived political opinion based on his perceived membership in the Indegenous People of Biafra (IBOP).
[5] The claimant alleges that he operated a business at XXX in Umuahia in Abia State. He XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at the XXXX XXXX XXXX in Lagos to see and provide services to his customer base in Umuahia. He would shuttle between his business in Umuahia and his home is Lagos.
[6] He alleges that in XXXX 2016, he was was detained, interrogated and mistreated by the military on suspicion of involvement with the IPOB and released without being charged.
[7] The claimant alleges that he went to his nearby home village of XXXX XXXX to stay with relatives and recover. At the end of October 2016, he received a call from a business colleague who informed him that the military had returned to his shop at XXXX. The claimant returned to Lagos to live with his wife and family. He alleges that he remained very scared and largely stayed inside the house. He did not experience any problems after his return to Lagos.
[8] The claimant alleges that he and his wife had planned a trip to Canada to celebate an important anniversary that had to be delayed because of what had happened to him. They left Lagos on XXXX 2018.
[9] The claimant alleges that his wife received a call while in Canada informing her that the “Bale” or local chief had sent men looking for her as her same sex relationship had been exposed. They separated and the claimant remains estranged from his wife. The claimant also fears the police and the “Bale” of the area where they formerly resided and that he risks being arrested because of his estranged wife’s issue.
[10] The claimant alleges that the military have come to his home village looking for him, most recently on November 20, 2019, and that there is nowhere in Nigeria where he would be safe.
NEXUS
[11] The panel finds that there is a link between what the claimant fears and one of the five Convention grounds, namely, his perceived political opinion as a perceived member of the IPOB.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[12] The panel finds that the claimant’s personal identity and nationality as a citizen of Nigeria and his Igbo ethnicity have been established on a balance of probabilities. This has been established through the claimant’s testimony and the supporting documentary evidence filed that includes his passport, a copy of which was provided to the Board by IRCC/ Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”).iv
CREDIBILITY
[13] Considering the totality of the evidence, the panel finds the claimant to be a credible witness and therefore believes what he has alleged in support of his claim as set out in oral and written testimony. The panel notes that the claimant’s estranged spouse has a separate claim for refugee protection based on her own personal circumstances. She did not appear as a witness nor did she submit any evidence in support of the claimant’ s claim.
[14] The claimant testified credibly and in detail that he was detained, interrogated, and mistreated by the military in XXXX 2016 on suspicion of involvement with the IPOB and released without being charged. He described in detail how he was arrested by the military who entered his shop asking about IPOB materials, which he denied having. He was taken along with other men to a military barracks where he was detained, beaten and interrogated about the IPOB, its leadership and activities and the whereabouts of Emma Powerful. He denied any involvement with the IPOB. Two days later, he was taken to his home where they saw XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX that he used in his XXXX and was accused of being an engineer technician for Radio Biafra. They also went to his shop in XXXX where they found various XXXX that he was repairing or had for sale. He was taken back to the barracks and subjected to further interrogations and beatings. He alleges that he lost XXXX XXXX as a result of the beatings. He remained in detention for a further 10 days and was released. The document issued to him by XXXX showing that he owned a business there and his driver’s licence were retained. He testified that he was never charged, and no conditions were attached to his release.
[15] The Panel finds the claimant’s account of events in Umuahia is plausible in light of the objective documentary evidence regarding the treatment of members and suspected members and supporters of the IPOB by joint military and police operations throughout the south-eastern region of Nigeria during this time period.v The panel also notes that the documentary evidencevi refers to Radio Biafra and its main host, Emma Powerful, and its role in organizing protests and calling for boycotts. According to one source, the broadcasts are illegal and are conducted live from an undisclosed location in Nigeria.
[16] The claimant also provided evidence of his business registrationvii which the panel found to be credible.
[17] The claimant also provided an affidavitviii from C.C. who owns a shop in XXXX XXXX
as the claimant that corroborates the claimant’s account of his detention by the military arrest as a suspected member of the IPOB and the military’s return trip to XXXX and to the claimant’s shop while he was recovering in his village. The panel finds the affidavit to be credible.
[18] The claimant also provided an affidavitix from U.I., a cousin, that corroborates the claimant’s account of his condition and that he cared for the claimant in the village of XXXX XXXX Umuahia in Abia State. The panel finds the affidavit to be credible.
[19] The claimant also provided an affidavitx from M.O.O., that states that the military and plain clothed security agents came to the village on XXXX 2019 and arrested IPOB members and others and also came to the family house in search of the claimant. The panel finds the affidavit to be credible.
[20] The claimant also submitted reports from C.E. with XXXX XXXXxi hearing clinic that references the claimant’s history of head trauma by the Nigerian military and corroborates hearing loss in XXXX. The claimant testified that he receives ongoing treatment from a psychotherapist and submitted two reports into evidence.xii
[21] Considering the totality of the evidence, the panel finds on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has a subjective fear of returning to Nigeria due to his perceived political opinion as a perceived member of the IPOB. He has established that he is a person of previous interest to the state security apparatus, especially the military, and that he was detained, interrogated and mistreated by the military in Umuahia in Abia State on suspicion of involvement with the IPOB and released without being charged and that the military continue to look for him.
OBEJCTIVE BASIS
[22] The Board finds that the claimant’s allegations are supported by the documentary evidence, namely the national documentation package for Nigeriaxiii and claimant’s disclosure, xiv and that the claimant could face a serious possibility of persecution should he return to Nigeria on account of his perceived political opinion as a perceived member of the IPOB.
[23] The panel considered the following documentary evidence.
[24] It was reported by Amnesty International (AI) in September 2016xv that on several occasions security forces have used excessive force against pro-Biafran activists who have attended protest marches or attempted to do so across south-eastern Nigeria. AI has documented cases of arrest, enforced disappearance and often killing of supporters and members of various pro-Biafran groups. Scores of Biafran independence supporters were in detention for attempting to hold or participate in peaceful assemblies, many of them since January 2016.
[25] Another AI reportxvi from November 2016 refers to its research that shows a disturbing pattern of hundreds of arbitrary arrests and ill-treatment by soldiers during and after IPOB events, including arrests of wounded victims in hospital, and torture and other ill-treatment.
[26] Other sources in addition to AI xvii report on members and supporters of IPOB as well as bystanders being injured or killed by police and military in Onitsha on May 30, 2016 during protests held to mark the anniversary of the start of the 1967 Biafra war. According to AI, this resulted in at least 17 deaths and 50 injuries and was the consequence of excessive and unnecessary use of force.
[27] AI also noted that between August 2015 and May 2016, there were at least five similar incidents in Onitsha alone where the police and military shot unarmed IPOB members and supporters. AI reported that the military opened fire on peaceful IPOB supporters and protesters and that killing and mass arrests of members and supporters by joint military and police operations happened in October, November and December 2015.xviii
[28] Sources also stated that Nmamdi Kanu, the leader of the IPOB, was jailed on charges including treason which is punishable by death and kept in custody until April 2017 despite the court ordering his release.xix Four IPOB members who were arrested with Nnamdi Kanu in 2015 were jailed and charged with treasonable felony. They were granted bail in June 2018.
[29] The Nigerian military launched Operation Python Dance II in September 2017. The military raided Kanu’s home as part of the operation. AI indicated that ten IPOB members were killed and twelve injured by the military and the military noted that the deaths occurred during their attempt to arrest Kanu at his home.xx
[30] Sources indicated that the Nigerian military designated the IPOB as a terrorist organization in September 2017.xxi Also, five south eastern states including Anambra banned all IPOB activities in September 2017. Sources indicate that the Abia State Police Commissioner stated, subsequent to the terrorist designation and the ban on IPOB activities, that anyone caught with Biafran materials would be arrested and prosecuted.xxii According to other sources, the Anambra Police Commissioner indicated the ban would be enforced and anyone involved in the activities of the IPOB would be charged with terrorism, which carries a minimum sentence of twenty years and a maximum sentence of the death penalty.xxiii
[31] Other sources reported that in September 2017, sixty pro-Biafra supporters who participated in an IPOB rally which left a police officer dead and a police station nearly burned down, were charged and jailed for conspiracy, terrorism, attempted murder and membership in an unlawful society.xxiv
[32] Other sources indicates that 112 women in Owerri were arrested during an August 2018 protest regarding the whereabouts of Kanu and subsequently detained and charged with treason and unlawful assembly.xxv
[33] Other sources indicated that 51 people were arrested in December 2018 for being m possession of different emblems of the IPOB.
[34] Other sources indicate that Enugu State Joint Security Patrol teams found Biafra insignias on 140 individuals going to a funeral. All 140 individuals were arrested and charged with terrorism and sent to prison by the magistrate court until their case could be heard at the High Court.
[35] The panel has also considered recent documentary evidence from June 2020xxvi that refers to the arrest of IPOB protesters in Abia state that were to be brought to the police headquarters in Umuahia, the same location where the claimant operated his business. More recent documentary evidence from August 2020 refers to clashes between IPOB members and the police, army and Department of State Services operatives when the police attempted to arrest them.xxvii
[36] Considering all of the evidence, including the claimant’s credible account of events that he is a person of previous interest to the state security apparatus, especially the military, and that he was detained, interrogated and mistreated by the military in Umuahia in Abia State on suspicion of involvement with the IPOB and that the military continue to look for him and the documentary evidence with respect to the treatment by Nigerian authorities of actual or perceived members and supporters of the IPOB, the panel finds that the claimant would face a serious possibiity of persecution should he return to Nigeria based on his perceived political opinion as a perceived member of the IPOB.
STATE PROTECTION
[37] Based on the claimant’s personal circumstances as well as the objective country documentation as referred to above, the panel finds on a balance of probabilities that it is objectively unreasonable for the claimant to seek protection from authorities in Nigeria. The state security apparatus, especially the military, is the agent of persecution. Therefore, the panel finds that there is no adequate state protection available for the claimant in Nigeria.
INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE
[38] With regards to an internal flight alternative (“IFA”), this is not a viable option as Nigerian authorities have effective control over the territory. Based on the objective documentary evidence as set out above, the panel finds that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Nigeria and as such there is no viable IFA.
CONCLUSION
[39] Based on the totality of the evidence, the panel finds that the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution based on his perceived political opinion as a perceived member of the IPOB. Therefore, the panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee and accepts his claim.
(signed) “M. Bourassa” M.BOURASSA
November 3, 2020 Date
i Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1)(b).
ii Exhibit 18, post-hearing evidence.
iii Exhibit 1.
iv Exhibit 2.
v Exhibit 7, Response to Information Request NGA 106308.E, 28 June 2019.
vi Exhibit 13,
vii Exhibit 9, item 6.
vii Exhibit 7, item 6
viii Exhibit 9, item 1.
ix Exhibit 9, item 2.
x Exhibit 17.
xi Exhibit 18, post-hearing submissions and Exhibit 9, item 5.
xii Exhibit 18, post-hearing evidence and Exhibit 7, item 4.
xiii Exhibits 3 and 13.
xiv Exhibits 16 and Exhibit 10, item 5, Nigeria: The lndigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), including objectives, structures, activities, relations with other Biafran independence groups and treatment by authorities.
XV Ibid.
xvi Exhibit 10, item 2.
xvii Ibid.
xviii Ibid.
xix Exhibit 13, NGA 106308.E, 28 June 2019.
xx Ibid.
xxi Ibid.
xxii Ibid.
xxiii Ibid.
xxiv Ibid.
xxv Ibid.
xxvi Exhibit 16.
xxvii Ibid.